Center for a New American Security

Andrew Exum, How is it you

Andrew Exum,

How is it you have spent YEARS in the stomping grounds of terrorists and are proud to have only spent 8 days in Israel. If this was World War 2, you would be arrested as a spy, and most certainly would not have access to military commanders whatsoever. That reasoning should be revisited as evinced in your continual support of Hizballah.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Nietzsche

No, Gulliver, deleting

No, Gulliver, deleting comments is a fools errand on a free-for-all-Wild-West blog like this. If Abu M, or a moderator, starts deleting anything other than obvious spam, the blog sort of becomes responsible for the comments it doesn't delete. The question will be: why did you delete this comment and not that comment? You must be endorsing said comment because you didn't delete it....

See, this is where a certain essential narcissism is useful. Well, that's what I tell myself, anyway, as a grade A narcissist. It's all about me. Pay attention to your own comments, and the comments that interest you, and ignore the rest!

So anyone with a dissenting

So anyone with a dissenting voice is a troll?

No, I'd say that anyone who offers nothing to the debate and comes round merely to take personal shots at the blog's proprietor, often based on where he has or hasn't spent enough time, or bullshit aspersions about his career aspirations, or what kind of flag he has in his office -- those guys are trolls.

It's got nothing to do with dissent. I'm a dissenting voice on a lot of the Afghanistan stuff. SNLII is certainly a dissenter. Bernard Finel is a dissenter. Gian Gentile is a dissenter. None of these people are trolls.

You, the guy who talks shit about someone he doesn't know, the guy who doesn't so much "dissent" as simply flap his virtual lips about nonsense, you are a troll.

Madhu, I feel you, and your point is well-taken, but this is starting to drive me nuts. You are of course right, even if the truth is frustrating.

No way Fred Kagan would fit

No way Fred Kagan would fit in one of those suits.

As far as a substantive (if

As far as a substantive (if random) criticism...

Page 38 has the following bullet:

The 4thBrigade of the 82ndAirborne Division will be deploying later this year, but it has the mission of training Afghan troops and does not, therefore, fill any of the requirements identified above.

4/82 actually deployed last month; two soldiers from 2nd Bn, 508 PIR were killed Sunday in Zabul province when their vehicle rolled over.

I'm not sure on what authority the Kagans assert the following (which is higher up on the same page), either:

The best way to train indigenous forces rapidly is to partner coalition units with them together in combat.

Partnering isn't exactly training, and is a phase of security force assistance that typically follows the teaching of basic skills. In fact, this statement pretty well flies in the face of the Army's approach, which is that teaching and coaching should take place in controlled environments (which is to say, not in combat), whereas advising and partnering are higher-end activities intended to engage more capable HN units.

As you are a respected

As you are a respected member of the KCL Dept. of War Studies, how can you bear to watch hacks such as Kimberley Kagan running an 'Institute for the Study of War' while keeping an ex-Ranger's composure? This organization is a complete farce and should not be taken seriously by anyone interested in the 'study of war'.

Buds question above was

Buds question above was never answered, and after reading this series of comments I also want an answer to that. Or is it one you folks just can't answer?

Comment by Duke on September

Comment by Duke on September 22, 2009 - 5:47pm
"Can't handle the heat ladies? I have been dissenting for quite some time and have only received attacks as a response."

Was this the "Exum, you suck cock" theory you laid out recently, or did we miss the real detail of your dissent somewhere else ?
Tell you what, why don't you find the nugget of dissent you're the most happy with as a coherent, thoughtful critique you believe is deserving of response, then quote for me the by-line including timestamp as I've done above. Google will take care of the rest and we can all see the kind of dissent you believe has gone without it's fair response.
Chop chop.

1. In the post-Cold War,

1. In the post-Cold War, the United States has a certain and specific agenda. This certain and specific agenda is to transform the Third World.

2. In order to do this, the United States realizes that it must have the ability and capability to:

(a) Persuade, coerce and/or compel Third World populations and actors to comply with and carry out America's will.

(b) Persuade, coerce and/or compel members of the so-called "international community" to join with and help American with this new mission -- or to at least stay out of America's way as she moves to achieve this new objective.

3. A test of our abilities and capabilities as per (a) and (b) above presented themselves in the challenges of Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. Errors, inadequacies and invalid theories and assumptions were quickly revealed in these conflicts.

5. And corrective measures -- to shore up these deficincies -- have been undertaken and show some promise.

6. But what to do with Iraq and Afghanistan now?

7. Certainly a "win" in each of these engagements would indicate to the rest of the world that the United States HAD developed the requisite abilities and capabilities necessary to achieve its 21st Century agenda in the Third World.

8. And certainly a "loss" would indicate to the rest of the world that the United States HAD NOT developed these required abilities/capabilities.

I think this is indeed a

I think this is indeed a valid point. Why would one who is ostensibly the enemy be able to interview and talk to , interact with these terrorist organizations with impunity? One would think that they would behead his ass on sight wouldn't one? Why would he be allowed by the "enemy" to move with impunity all throughout the region without any attempt on his life? Sometimes I miss simple things here so please oh ye learned enlighten me!!!! On the surface it appears to be a definite fallacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@kilo Are you obtuse? or just plain stupid? Exum. Your buddy? The one who spends years in hostile countries?

I don't really expect an

I don't really expect an answer from these Exum "fans" (putting it polity) But I do expect an answer from the rest of you...... or are all of you blinded to these things?

Please tell me someone is

Please tell me someone is keeping a record going for a special "Best of Baseless Aspersions said on Abu Muqawama"

Gulliver: it doesn't bother

Gulliver: it doesn't bother you to read Hizballah propaganda at a supposedly COUNTER-insurgency blog?

Leaps & Bounds: The Rapid

Leaps & Bounds: The Rapid Evolution of Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahideen's Media

Guys, Exum has a beard. And

Guys, Exum has a beard. And we all know how stupid these subhuman arab cowards in foreign countries are. He grows a beard, keeps his pink shirt in his wardrobe in DC, and chats to the Hezzzies, Hamies, Tallies and even Osama himself without any of them dummies wising up.

But you're right about those goddamn cowards. Why don't they come out in the open, with a proper uniform where we can kill them? And the way they hide behind women and children, its almost like they're trying to trick us into killing innocent civilians. Like they tricked us into invading Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

Goddamn, cunning fiends. Animal cunning, not good righteous alpha male christian english speaking cleverness.

you know the sort of cleverness that makes F22s and cool stuff like that.

A few comments on the

A few comments on the presentation:

Prioritisation - I wholeheartedly disagree with "Accept significant risks in Ghazni" - making travel safe along Highway 1 fro Kabul to Hirat should be as much a priority, if not more so, than the northern half of Helmand. The route is essential to the nation’s economy, social development, the emergence of good governance, and the modernization of Afghanistan and as such is of critical strategic importance. The Ring Road is also critical to the insurgency if it wishes to achieve its strategic goals, and for this reason also, the route has to be secured as a matter of urgency.

Kandahar - "the extent of (the Taliban's) presence and influence is not knowable", actually it is knowable but they didn't have any information (which in itself is telling). The Taliban have complete freedom of movement throughout the city at night and in several areas during the day. They are able to go into central Mosques during Friday prayers and threaten individuals. The homes of police officers in the city are regularly targeted, such as grenades thrown over walls, in an attempt to intimidate them. ISAF forces briefly deployed into the city after last year's jail break and were welcomed. Then they shot and killed an elderly man and (possibly, my memory is a bit hazy at the moment) his grandson in a "force escalation" incident. They were no longer welcomed.

The biggest question at the moment remains the Afghan government - many, many deals have been struck over the last weeks and some of them will have to be honored. "Reliable" and "ally" need to be seen in shades of grey. Targeting only govt officials whose "actions seriously jeopardize our efforts" is very subjective and open to a great deal of interpretation.

Lebanon is a very hostile

Lebanon is a very hostile country, it's true. I hear that they don't have flushing toilets or a MacDonald's -- the very definition of hostile. Paris is worse. Exum, you have been found out at the last by anonymous sock-puppets unable to even string coherent sentences together. The irony.

To get back to the Kagan

To get back to the Kagan presentation - the concept of 'partnering' implies a pretty fundamental shift in operating culture. Specifically, the western forces are going to have to get over their obsession with opsec and actually allow Afghans into planning sessions and command posts.

The touches on a number of issues raised here and elsewhere in the recent past. First, literacy among ANSF. While most Afghan officers I've dealt with are literate (or were - since the ANA don't rotate within country those guys have been fighting non-stop the past couple of years, so they may all be dead), there are (were) some glaring exceptions. Second, there's the tech gap - even the ANSF who can read are overwhelmed by powerpoint, computerised C2 systems etc. Third, although we've trained up kandaks to varying degrees, we haven't done so good a job at training Bde/Corps staffs, so the military decision making process is a painful process. Fourth, the process will slow to a crawl with the need for translation. Fifth, getting maps published in Dari or Pashto is like pulling hen's teeth. Sixth, this may require changing the ANSF readiness cycle to ensure that kandaks in the green cycle are available for ops - recent experience in Helmand has shown that to be a sticking point. Seventh, our leadership is paranoid about letting Afghans into ops centres, whether they be ANSF or terps.

It's going to take a heck of a lot of firm direction and continual oversight to make partnering work.

But it will be worth it, if it's ever actually pushed.

emphasize the plane's

emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities, express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the plane is worth the unexpected costs.free advertising|hearing aid manufacturers